Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSocial IssuesStarted 11yrs agoActive 4hrs ago

Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood?

Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization that provides reproductive health services in the United States and internationally. Each year federal and state governments provide the organization with $528 million in funding (40% of its annual budget). The majority of this funding comes from Medicaid which subsidizes reproductive healthcare for low-income women. In 2014, abortions accounted for 3% of the services they provided. The majority of the other services include screening for and treating sexually transmitted diseases and infections and providing contraception. Proponents of fundi…  

Read more
+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

:

:

:

:

State:

Congressional District (2014-2024):

DMA:

State Senate District:

County:

Assembly District:

City:

Zipcode:

Informed Voters

These active users have achieved an understanding of common concepts and the history regarding the topic of Planned Parenthood Funding

@BBL3GFF
#1 Informed Voter

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Planned Parenthood Funding

@BBRFS4R
#1 Engaged Voter
@9ZKP8HQ
#2 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

22.6k Replies

 @9Y7TSTNDemocrat from Indiana  answered…2yrs2Y

No, but need to create another organization that provides the other services that Planned Parenthood does but not abortion.

 @9TMY8ZM from Ohio  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but we should have fully socialized medicine so places like Planned Parenthood become unnecessary

 @9S8BHYKDemocrat from Virginia  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, until the government creates a public bureau that performs the same services provided by Planned Parenthood

 @9GMN9W4  from Minnesota  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes. Women should not have their bodily autonomy up for debate, and they deserve effective, comprehensive, and easily accessible health care.

 @Mike-H-Hutchins.Progressive  from Connecticut  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes. Their services reach far beyond abortions and can save many Lives, Through cancer screening, prenatal services, and adoption referrals.

Planned parenthood has done much more than Abortions, Children can go there for confidential issues, they don't feel comfortable talking to parents about. They can also do screening for cancers, and other purposes besides Abortion.

 @9BCNNP3 from Colorado  answered…3yrs3Y

I believe sex ed for young kids may cause some problems, so maybe an age difference but I believe other stuff good fully

 @93XSV8C from Indiana  answered…4yrs4Y

It's much more nuanecd, and the go

 @93CTQJX from Maryland  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes. Only if they are helping women who choose to have their child and not forcing prolife motives

 @8ZRZYX8 from Iowa  answered…4yrs4Y

No, and abortion should be a criminal offense

 @8ZNQFZL from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, and the funding should be increasesd

 @8YNRLPTSocialist from Georgia  answered…4yrs4Y

such services should be within government funded hospitals, and their shouldn't necessarily be a need for a separate entity.

 @8WLRRPP from Wisconsin  answered…5yrs5Y

yes, but it should also fund for abortions

 @8W6ZFWP from Colorado  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes because it doesn't matter if women are going there to get an abortion it is there body and they are allowed to get an abortion safely rather than in a very sketchy disgusting not properly sterile environment that could end up killing her

 @8SRCVTT from Pennsylvania  answered…5yrs5Y

No, not because of any disagreement with Planned Parenthood, but because, outside of Grants, the government should not fund any private cooperation.

 @8SH2BSG from Colorado  answered…5yrs5Y

I believe everyone has the right to abortion

 @8SGXXZNSocialist from North Carolina  answered…5yrs5Y

Planned parenthood should be rebuilt as it is broken

 @8S6PMND from Arizona  answered…5yrs5Y

I feel that if you choose to have a kid it is the parent's responsibility to take of that child and love them, but in some situation some parents actually fo need help

 @8RSMQ5R from Connecticut  answered…5yrs5Y

No, a better option for universal healthcare should be provided.

 @8QTZ7MY from Georgia  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, due to certain circumstances. However, funding should decrease and be limited forcing a cultural change in sexual behavior.

 @8NQZWLLWomen’s Equality from North Carolina  answered…6yrs6Y

the government shouldn´t take women choices if she wants the baby or not. Her body her choice no man should be able to choose for her and take away her rights.

 @8MBL554Republican from Connecticut  answered…6yrs6Y

No, abortions should only be done if the mothers life is in danger or, rape or, incest

 @8MB439W from Massachusetts  answered…6yrs6Y

Pro choice <3

 @8KSRYR5Socialist from North Carolina  answered…6yrs6Y

It's already illegal for government funding to go towards abortions. The government funds Planned Parenthood's necessary services such as cancer screenings, adoption referrals, and STD testing.

 @8JJ2XBR from Kansas  answered…6yrs6Y

i dont support it theres not much to say except how would you feel if u got aborted snd u wouldnt because you wouldnt be here. but then as well you what makes you happy and support desions

 @8HRDCG6Women’s Equality from Washington  answered…6yrs6Y

Planned Parenthood is one of the single most important organizations. They save the lives of women who cannot endure pregnancy, provide birth control, counseling, etc. Planned Parenthood IS healthcare.

 @8HL4DFN from Massachusetts  answered…6yrs6Y

In a comprehensive single payer system planned parenthood's services would all be offered by the national health program

 @8GSLBH9 from Arizona  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, for all procedures

 @8FTYDDT from Utah  answered…6yrs6Y

i feel as if it shouldn't matter

 @8DT3HSRLibertarian from California  answered…6yrs6Y

add a checks and balances system to it have a limit on the Kids

 @8D5HY88Green from South Carolina  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes but only for abortion in the first 4 weeks

 @8CZ5SWV from Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, as long as the funding is not used for political donations.

 @8C98M2YSocialist from California  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, and provide funding for abortion services

 @8HF7ZMS from North Dakota  answered…3yrs3Y

No, states should fund planned parent hood

 @96V8V5D from Maine  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, and including abortion services

 @96TX54H from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes until healthcare is free for everyone

 @8Z6SZ78 from New Hampshire  answered…4yrs4Y

the government doesn't fund planned parenthood

 @8T433JVSocialist from Tennessee  answered…5yrs5Y

I'm mixed on it.

 @8GVTVXS from Kansas  answered…6yrs6Y

I do not currently have an opinion upon this subject

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies